Information Is a Fundamental Entity (does it = nonmaterial foundation for all biological systems?)

ping!

Thanks for the ping!

For those interested in following this series on the concept of information, part I and part II follow:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/preliminary-remarks-concept-information

Information is an objectively real but non-material entity (thus disproving the notion that only matter/energy exists). Information can be stored in a matter/energy medium, but it is not the medium itself. Otherwise it would require a nuclear reaction (along the lines of E=mc^2) every time you read a book, to transfer the information from the ink on the page into light photons and on into your neurons!

Since information is not a property of the energy/matter it rides on, naturalistic theories for the origin of information will inevitably fail. Thus, for example, you will never account for the information in a book by studying the laws of chemistry and physics that affect ink and paper. Such laws can explain the presence of patterns of ink blots (for example, dripping from a quill pen at a certain height and splashing on paper below it), but they will utterly fail to explain a sentence in an independently existing pre-specified language.

This comes from one of my favorite books. I had the privilege of having lunch with the author a couple of years ago. What a wonderful man...and a fantastic book!

Ooops, double posted the same link. Here goes again...

For those interested in following this series on the concept of information, part I and part II follow:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/preliminary-remarks-concept-information

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/principles-of-laws-of-nature

Excellent reply. Which just goes to show that reductionistic material science falls woefully short of explaining the informational foundation of biological systems.

"Information is an objectively real but non-material entity (thus disproving the notion that only matter/energy exists)."

Ridiculous! You can not make a conclusion from a statement.

"Information can be stored in a matter/energy medium, but it is not the medium itself."

The storage is a configuration of energy. It's the configuration that has effect. Without any configuration of energy, there is nothing.

"Otherwise it would require a nuclear reaction (along the lines of E=mc^2) every time you read a book, to transfer the information from the ink on the page into light photons and on into your neurons!"

The whole process involves E=mc². All elements of the process involve energy expendatures which are reductions in mass.

"Since information is not a property of the energy/matter it rides on, naturalistic theories for the origin of information will inevitably fail."

Information requires particular energy configurations, without which there is nothing.

What you seem to be missing is the origin of the information. It is not derived from matter...it is not a property of matter. It can only originate in a Mind. Period!

"What you seem to be missing is the origin of the information."

Origin doesn't matter. If there's no physical representation at any point, then there's nothing to distinguish any particulars at all. IOWs, there's nothing there w/o the configuration in some physics.

"It can only originate in a Mind."

A mind is a machine that requires some physics to be realized.

You have a very interesting worldview!

Information is material, sorry to tell you..

Basically, our brain is designed mainly to pick patterns out of signal noise. This is why we see faces in trees/rocks/colored moths.. because our brain realizes the pattern and diverts our attention to them. Our brain can be scanned to find out what we are looking at.. There is even a new video game controller that rests on your head and uses your thinking power to move a video game!
Information does not exist independently of the mind unless it is recorded, and even then, if the reader of the information has no knowledge of the script used to write it, now then they have no knowledge of the information written!

From a science article:

"Kamitani starts by getting someone to look at a selection of images made up of black and white squares on a 10 by 10 square grid, while having their brain scanned. Software then finds patterns in brain activity that correspond to certain pixels being blacked out. It uses this to record a signature pattern of brain activity for each pixel.The person then sits in the scanner and is shown fresh patterns. Another piece of software then matches these against the list to reconstruct the pixels on a 10 by 10 grid.
The quality of images that were recreated is quite crude. However, the word "neuron" and several numbers and shapes that people were indeed being shown (see image, top right) could be observed in the reconstructed images. It is an important proof of principle, says Haynes.
As fMRI technology improves, Kamitani adds that an image could potentially be split into many more pixels, producing much higher quality images, and even colour images."

Try to explain the color blue to a blind person who has never seen color and then tell me thought exists independently of the brain! We use our senses and language (one of the greatest gifts from God himself) to put meaning (or a reference of a memory, much like a computer pointer) to thought. Without a way to record a thought, it is meaningless to anyone but you. Period.

If information was immaterial, according to what that article says, people would retain it even if they receive massive non-fatal head trauma.. right?

One thing I forgot, Every word we know is a symbol.. When we read, we just look at the word shape. We can sound the words out because we know what each individual letter should sound like because we memorized those letters as symbols.
The only things we know to be true are what our body tells us.. And even sometimes, it can go whacky (nerve problems, etc..). Thanks to our sensory organs and electromagnetic energy (light)/mass (pressed wood fibers and black ink in a book) sound propagation, braille, et.. we can convey information to other people in many different ways

There have been quite a few feral children found in remote areas that live with animals and no know language. I don't know about you, but when I think in my head, I am talking in English! I cannot imagine a thought without language, can you? These feral children think things like "I need food" or "I'm tired" because all they know is what their body is telling them. They can't make logical deductions because formal logic is mediated through language. When programmers write programs, they think of logical structuring in English and sometimes even think in the programming language they're using (with English words of course!).. Just something to think about :)

I don't know about you, but when I think in my head, I am talking in English!

Even with you, I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule.

I cannot imagine a thought without language, can you?

Yes.

These feral children think things like "I need food" or "I'm tired" because all they know is what their body is telling them. They can't make logical deductions because formal logic is mediated through language.

Language is not required to make logical deductions or even to use formal logic. Even animals make some logical deductions. A feral child of sufficient age who is hungry is still likely to be able to make some logical plans on how to obtain food.

I get the feeling that I may be responsible for this post.
:-D

"The main disadvantage of Shannon’s definition of information is that the actual contents and impact of messages were not investigated."

Totally wrong and insane. This is the main advantage of Shannon's mathematical formalism: it applies to any 'message' that meets its hypotheses, regardless of content.

Since the concept of information is so complex that it cannot be defined in one statement...We will formulate various special theorems which will gradually reveal more information about the “nature” of information, until we eventually arrive at a precise definition..."

hahahahahha, you're going to prove theorems about something before defining it? Does this joker even know what a theorem is?

"Ernst von Weizsäcker [W3]: “The reason for the ‘uselessness’ of Shannon’s theory in the different sciences is frankly that no science can limit itself to its syntactic level."

This is either insane or hideously out of context. So Shannon's noisy channel coding theorem is useless, huh? I tried to find the cite for this, but I don't think Doc Werner Gitt has given it. Can you find it for me GGG?

"Theorem 1: The fundamental quantity information is a non-material (mental) entity. It is not a property of matter, so that purely material processes are fundamentally precluded as sources of information."

Okay, this answers my earlier question: clearly this guy has no idea what a theorem is. THIS IS NOT A THEOREM. It's a vague assertion about completely undefined concepts ('non-material', 'entity', 'property of matter', etc), backed up by nothing more than a few (unsourced?) quotes.

"What is the causative factor for the existence of information? What prompts us to write a letter, a postcard, a note of felicitation, a diary, or a comment in a file? The most important prerequisite is our own volition, or that of a supervisor. In analogy to the material side, we now introduce a fourth fundamental entity, namely “will” (volition), W."

Well this sure sounds scientific! As a Jew, Germans talking about 'will' makes me kinda nervous. Is he going to start talking about the Volk next?

"Information and volition are closely linked, but this relationship cannot be expressed in a formula because both are of a nonmaterial (mental, intellectual, spiritual) nature."

So 'information', which he hasn't defined, and 'volition', which he also hasn't defined, are 'closely linked'. He provides zero proof for this assertion, zero explanation of what 'linked' means, and zero explanation of what 'closely linked' means as opposed to 'weakly' or 'loosely' linked. And then he concludes this nonsensical relationship between two nebulous concepts that exist mostly in his imagination can't be written down as a formula? Surprising, that.

Based on the preceding hippy stew of made-up concepts, baseless assertions, and unnervingly Nazi-like mysticism, Dr. Walnut concludes:

"Theorem 2: Information only arises through an intentional, volitional act."

I call him Dr. Walnut because I like to imagine 'Werner' means 'walnut' in German, and because I've concluded he is a complete nutcase. The following words in this 'theorem' are undefined by Doc Walnut: 'information', 'intentional', 'volitional', 'act'. Since there are only eight total words in the 'theorem', this yields a nonsense-word-to-sensible-word ratio of 1 : 1. In other words, I have mathematically proven that at least 50 percent of this sentence is total bull.

Oh yeah, and this is still NOT A THEOREM. Did Doc Walnut's dementia set in gradually, or is there some doctorate-granting institution in Germany that should be really, really ashamed of itself?

"Theorem 3: Information comprises the nonmaterial foundation for all technological systems and for all works of art."

STILL NOT A THEOREM, HERR DOKTOR. Just in case anyone is curious for a comparison here is what a real theorem looks like. Here's another. Notice how both of those theorems carefully define their terms, express their assertions in compact, precise mathematical language, and provide a clear, logical proof. Notice how Doc Walnut's 'theorems' do none of this.

Summary: This is rambling mystical hokum intended for the mental defective or the easily duped, and a moments' consultation of any vaguely authoritative source on information theory will establish the intergalactic gulf between the actual mathematics contained therein and Doc Walnut's vague mumblings. Is this really the best AiG can do? It has lowered my already incredibly low opinion of their standards.

Information is immaterial, but requires codes/symbols which consist of matter to transmit. I can get the same “information” listening to an audio book as I can reading the book on paper...same information, different matter. If the information was a property of the matter, that would be impossible!

Thanks.

3.1 Information: A Fundamental Quantity